General News - Always On DRM

April 18th, 2013, 11:08

Originally Posted by RampantCoyote
The point about younger gamers is that they haven't grown up in a gaming environment where being offline is the norm. They are the ones that are easy to convince because they don't know anything else. They are the ones lacking the experience with older games that informs them that the implications being made by publishers is horse crap.

I fully agree with him.

They just don't know it any other way.
They just don't.

Originally Posted by Sacred_Path
I was referring to the article, not you.

But I don't think that by "young gamers" he meant 7 year olds, as it's quite obvious they don't understand the issue (or are simply not paranoid about corporations).

So you basically mean that TheMadGamer is wrong (in his perception) ?

— “ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.“ (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

It reminds me of the claim made by a designer and reported on this site: the public education system explains why games are what they are today, because it educates children to refuse hard gameplay as the keystone of public education is to challenge students.

Both claims ignore demographics.

When looking at demographics, the first suggestion is that players who ignore the consequences of an always online feature know of an alternate model. The bulk of players is old enough for that.
If you consider that grown ups buy games for players under 11 years old or so, it puts even more suspicion as grown ups themselves know of an alternate model.

Sim City 5 is another case as Sim City 4 is ten years old. Fans of the series know of an alternate model as they played previous games.

In all counts, buyers who override the always online feature are for their majority people who knew an alternate and prefer to ignore it.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
So you basically mean that TheMadGamer is wrong (in his perception) ?

TheMadGamer was talking about kids so young that they can't understand the issue.

There are two things that I think several people are wrong about:

1. "Young gamers can't see the point because they've grown up with DRM"

Even now, not every game contains DRM, so even if you started gaming RIGHT NOW you'd have a chance to experience gaming w/o DRM. But even if all gaming you ever did contained DRM (say you only play using Steam), and you're at least a teen, it's silly to assume that every teen isn't willing to make an informed decision. Which leads me to fallacy #2.

2. "Everyone who doesn't have the same opinion/ gaming habits that I have is a slavering zombie who has been programmed to act that way"

If we're talking about Steam, there are advantages to the service. The social aspect. Cloud saves. Achievements. Now, personally, I have never used Steam, it's not installed on my machines, and I don't give a crap about cloud saves and "achievements". But if you do, and if you're willing to accept the trade-offs that come with it, fine.

Some people seem worried that Steam, or businesses following the model of Steam, could become monopolists. I agree this wouldn't be the most pleasant situation I can think of. But even now, there's some resistance fomenting against this. GOG's major selling point (now that they've ditched the 'old' monicker) is "DRM-free". It's silly to say that right now, you don't have any choice. Of course, if you want to play all games, and all of them on your own terms, that makes you a bit of a problematic customer. I don't think that in a few years from now, every game will only be playable through Steam and when you use it they install one of their employees in your bedroom, and making a Google search will require you to eat a baby's liver first. But everyone loves some doomey-doom-doom.

I think of myself as a discerning customer, and I get by just fine with that. There is exactly only one drawback to this: it may take a while for the market to regulate itself. Basically, for someone with my gaming preferences, the entire last 10 years have been one big dry stretch: for reasons of things like me being old-school, the prevalence of online gaming, and the success of social aspects such as Steam. But I had my backlog, I had old games, I had some limited choice among new games, and I plain had other things to do beside gaming. Right now, I'm looking at a bright ~5 to 10 years ahead of me filled with great new games, offline play (when I choose to) and no DRM on my machines. Feels good man. 8)

Originally Posted by Sacred_Path
If we're talking about Steam, there are advantages to the service. The social aspect. Cloud saves. Achievements. Now, personally, I have never used Steam, it's not installed on my machines, and I don't give a crap about cloud saves and "achievements". But if you do, and if you're willing to accept the trade-offs that come with it, fine.

Some people seem worried that Steam, or businesses following the model of Steam, could become monopolists. I agree this wouldn't be the most pleasant situation I can think of. But even now, there's some resistance fomenting against this. GOG's major selling point (now that they've ditched the 'old' monicker) is "DRM-free". It's silly to say that right now, you don't have any choice. Of course, if you want to play all games, and all of them on your own terms, that makes you a bit of a problematic customer. I don't think that in a few years from now, every game will only be playable through Steam and when you use it they install one of their employees in your bedroom, and making a Google search will require you to eat a baby's liver first. But everyone loves some doomey-doom-doom.

Just a fun fact here Steam is a Monopoly they control almost 3/4 of all digital game sales and downloads. Now if they get on the consoles oh boy that will be another story.

To get back on topic though I'm an older gamer and agree with GhanBuriGhan and Myrthos. I'm connected but I don't want to be online just to play by myself.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Just a fun fact here Steam is a Monopoly they control almost 3/4 of all digital game sales and downloads. Now if they get on the consoles oh boy that will be another story.

it may be fun, but it's not a fact. It's entirely possible, even now, to be a gamer and don't use Steam. Saying "they have big claims in certain niches" doesn't make them a monopolist across the entire industry.

Originally Posted by Sacred_Path
it may be fun, but it's not a fact. It's entirely possible, even now, to be a gamer and don't use Steam. Saying "they have big claims in certain niches" doesn't make them a monopolist across the entire industry.

Well in my opinion(Is that better for you) many new releases on the pc are steam only. Even if you buy from somewhere else. You will still have to use Steam. The only way around that is a crack. I'm thankful for at least GOG and a few other services.

Personally making games a service has no benefits for me except steam sales. It has many benefits for publishers and developers though.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Well in my opinion(Is that better for you) many new releases on the pc are steam only. Even if you buy from somewhere else. You will still have to use Steam. The only way around that is a crack.

I have no problem accepting this as a fact; but I wouldn't call it a monopoly yet. Not as long as there is a substantial number of games coming out that don't use Steam. Among these, I would certainly count all (usually smaller or indie) games that will come out in the near future that make a point about not using Steam - after all, it takes some time for such resistance to materialize.

Personally making games a service has no benefits for me but many for publishers and developers.

It's your decision if you don't find "the services" Steam offers to be worth the trade-offs; services you wouldn't otherwise get (if you bought the game w/o Steam support).

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
When looking at demographics, the first suggestion is that players who ignore the consequences of an always online feature know of an alternate model.

Sim City 5 is another case as Sim City 4 is ten years old. Fans of the series know of an alternate model as they played previous games.

In all counts, buyers who override the always online feature are for their majority people who knew an alternate and prefer to ignore it.

I doubt so.

Why ? Because, when I look at boxed specimens in the electronic chan shops, and I look at the "system requirements" I often read :

- requires Steam
- requires permanent iternet connection

etc.

- the result is so simple :

They have no alternatives !

When even boxed specimens sold at retail come with an "always on" DROm - what alternatives do they have, then ?

You write : Players of SIM City 5 know that there is another format - offline - but decide to ignore it.

Then, please, can you tell me in which format SIM City 5 is sold as an complete offline game ?

Originally Posted by Sacred_Path
I have no problem accepting this as a fact; but I wouldn't call it a monopoly yet. Not as long as there is a substantial number of games coming out that don't use Steam.

The number is shrinking. The number is shrinking. Especially for low-buget games (like Adventure games).

From all adventure games I see in the local shop, ca. 3/5 are now steam-bound, especially those published by dtp, for example.

— “ Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage – to move in the opposite direction.“ (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)

I wrote that players who are fans of the Sims city series knew of a different format.

Sim city 4 is 10 years old. If you are a fan of the series, it means you played at least one of the series before (save you are in the label thing and call yourself a fan of the series without having played one)

All those players have known times when Sim City games were not played with an always online requirement.

When some of those players decided to buy a Sim City 5 game, their decision had nothing to do with being young, uninformed, not knowing another format.

Same for the rest, the demographics of players mean the bulk of players are old enough to have played games without the online requirement.

I just followed the argumentation in the article: youth are unconcerned because they did not have the opportunity of playing a game when the always online requirement did not exist.

It cant hold as the bulk of video games customers have played during the age when the online requirement did not exist.

Players who did not know that age are a minority.

In other words, players who buy an always on line game do not buy it because they are uninformed, young or something. They buy it because they either dont care or agree with the game being always online.

Originally Posted by Sacred_Path
It's your decision if you don't find "the services" Steam offers to be worth the trade-offs; services you wouldn't otherwise get (if you bought the game w/o Steam support).

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
Finding value where there is not is indeed a decision to make.

If you find "achievements" not having any value for you, subjectively, that's fine. It's the same for me. However, in the context of games, I can see why some players might find them worthwhile; they're an insta-clap on the back, which makes sense in the context of games, since overcoming obstacles and getting a satisfactory ending are but claps on the back as well.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
The fallacy here is that things like achievements cant be provided without Steam. No subjectivity in that. Was done already.

I don't know who claimed that, but I didn't, as it's inconsequential to the discussion. Cloud saves aren't a Steam exclusive either, but it's one thing that they're offering - if you choose to take them up on this offer, your decision. What is a fallacy is claiming that gamers have no choices.

If the new xbox will require 'always on' will Microsoft still charge an annual fee to connect your xbox to their servers? I haven't read anything that they will or they won't, but my gut tells me they absolutely will! That's an on-going fee on top of your xbox purchase and ISP fees. That would be yet one more reason for me NOT to buy a new xbox.

I'd have big problems with this. First because of the aforementioned fact that I'm paying full price for something I won't have any control over - and then I'd have mud flung in my eye to pay for that absence of control annually.

Secondly, my ISP costs me enough, I don't want to pay more just to connect my xbox to MS's servers when Sony and Nintendo do this for free (at least so far).

— If I'm right but there is no wife around to acknowledge it, am I still right?

it also clearly says it needs [graphic card of certain type] to run. If you choose not to support the companies in question (i.e. because they're evil corporations that force you to constantly buy uprades of their overpriced hardware) and try to get by with an Intel integrated graphics chip instead, you are free to make that choice.

Also, I simply can't understand the middle part of your post linguistically.